Dismissed

Reuben G.Hukkeri and Othrs v. Dr. Suresh Sahamsunder Samudre

Bombay HC17 Oct 2007FA/2283/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Bombay HC dismissed the appeal against the District Judge's order approving a change report and allowing termination of the appellant Secretary. The Court held the decision was based on factual misconduct and appreciation of material on record, with no substantial question of law raised.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 22-8-2007 and Change Report No.238/2001 were confirmed; First Appeal and Civil Application dismissed.

Reuben G.Hukkeri and Othrs Vs Dr. Suresh Sahamsunder… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

Lsp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.2283 of 2007

¶4

Shri Reuben G. Hukkeri & others

¶5

..Appellant

¶6

v/s. Dr. Suresh S. Samudre

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Shri Santosh D. Patil for the Appellant Shri Umesh Mankapure for the Respondent

¶9

P.C.		C D	ORAM : ANOO ATED : 17th O	P V. MOH ctober, 2007	TA,J.
	This	is	a first	appeal	under	section	72	of	the
Bombay	Pu	blic T	rust Act	(BPT	Act)	against	the	im	pugned
order	dated	18-	10-2005	passed	by	the	lear	ned	Adhoc
District	Judge,	Sangli	dated	22-8-2007	in	MA	no.	237	of
2005	under	section	70 of	the	BPT	Act.	The	order	passed
by	the	learned	Joint	Charity	Co	mmissioner		in	change
report	no.	238	of 2001	dated	13	-5-2005	under	section	22
of the B	PT Act was	set aside	that resulted i	nto
rejection	of the chan	ge report.

¶10

2.	It means the	change	report	filed by th	e respon	dents,
the	Chairman	of	the	trust	i.e.	H.S.	Grace	Federation,
Miraj	was	init	ially	accepted	.	The cons	equence	of the

¶11

¶12

impugned	order	is that	the	change	report	as	filed	has
been	restored.	The	learned	counsel	app	earing	for	the
appellants	unable	to po	int	out a	ny	substantial		question
of law	as	contemplated	un	der s	ection	100	of	Civil
Procedure	Code	(C.P.C.)	and	section	72	of	the	B.P.T.
Act.	required	under	these	pro	visions.		The	basic
submission	raised	revolve	around	the	facts.		Inspite	of
no a	genda, t	he Secretary	was	remove	d.	The	decision	as
taken	without	considering	t	he mate	rial	on	record	and
infact	based	on the	extra	considerat	ion.		The	finding

¶13

given is by overlooking the reasons given by the Joint

¶14

Charity Commissioner in order dated 18-10-2005.

¶15

3.	First of al	l, these are not q	uestions of law. At
the	most	these	are re- ap	preciation	of	the	material
available	o	n record.	Wrong	appreciat	ion	in the	present
case,	after	hearing	both the	parties	is	acceptable	as
recorded.		The	learned Dis	trict J	udge	after	considering
the	merits	of the	matter and	basically	the	conduct	and

¶16

defaulted actions of the Secretary in question rightly

¶17

recorded all the aspects.

¶18

(a) in the said meeting, in presence of others, the

¶19

Secretary assaulted and misbehaved with the Chairman. As per the Agenda various complaints of the Secretary was the issue for discussion. He was unable to give any justification for his defaults

¶20

¶21

like	non-giving		details	about	Rs.		10,000/-,	not
returned	the	books	of	accounts,	did	n	ot com	ply the
queries,	no	details	about	the	expens	es	that	there
was	an in	come	of Rs.	74	,185/-,	the	staff	salary
register	was	not	made	available	and		lastly	that he
was	arrested	by	the	police	in		criminal	case.
(b)	the	appellan	t Ch	airman	has		filed	R.C.S.
no.50/2002	against	the	appe	llant	as	he	had	referred
false								documents.

¶22

(c) the said Reuben had also filed civil suit no.50/2002 in Miraj in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Miraj, for restraining the Chairman from obstructing his day to day work of the trust but the same was rejected by observing that he had not produced any extract of the proceedings and serious mischief committed by the respondent no.1 (who was plaintiff) and thereby misled the Court also.

¶23

(d)		Therefore,	after	detail	discussion and	after
voting,	the	appellant	Secretary	was	terminated.	He
is	still		member	of	the	trust.

¶24

(e) Though appeal was filed, the appellant had

¶25

¶26

withdrawn the suit itself.

¶27

(f)	Though	affid	avits were	filed	but the	concerned
persons	were	not	examined	to	support	their
contentions.

¶28

4.	In this ba	ckground	the	change	report so s	ubmitted
cannot	be	said	to	be	bad.	The	decisio	n as	taken	was
after	giving	full		oppo	rtunity	to	the	appell	ant	Secretary
and	specially	in		vie	w of	the	above	conduct,	is	well

¶29

within the record and it is also in the interest of the

¶30

trust. Therefore, cannnot be said to be bad in law.

¶31

5.	Taking a	ll this in	to account,	I am of th	e view th	at
there	is	no	case	made	out	by	the	appellant to	interfere
with	the	reas	oning	as	well	as	o	rder passed	while
allowing		the	present	appl	ication.		The	impugned	order,
according	to me, is	within t	he framewo	rk of law	as well
as the reco	rd.

¶32

The change report no. 238/2001 is legal and proper and correct. The order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 18-12-2005 considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly interfere.

¶33

Resultantly, as there is no substantial question of

¶34

law raised, and even on merit the appeal is dismissed at

¶35

¶36

this stage itself.

¶37

In the result, civil application no. 4921/2007 is

¶38

also dismissed.

¶39

[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

Reuben G.Hukkeri and Othrs v. Dr. Suresh Sahamsunder Samudre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reuben G.Hukkeri and Othrs v. Dr. Suresh Sahamsunder Samudre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudev Vaikuntha Holla and Anr. Vs Siddhappa Shivshankar Karjagi D/H Suglabai Siddhappa Karjagi and Ors.

Sky Anchorage Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Shabbir M. Patel

Subhash D.Patil Vs Dashrath Kalidas Patel D/H Pravin Dashrath Patel and Ors.

Sangeeta Sanya Pattekar and Ors. Vs Nayeeman Khatoon Abdul Gaffar Ansari

Vinod Kumari Dhawan Vs Mela Ram Dhawan

Nayeeman Khantoon Abdul Gaffar Ansari Vs Sangeeta Sanya Pattekar and Othrs